Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Sinha and Rai JJ.
Sasa Musa Sugar Mills Ltd.
Versus
Sugeni Pandey
Civil Revision No. 726 of 1949 ;
Decided On : AUGUST 9, 1950
The court was tasked with determining the validity of a demand for security from the petitioner, the keeper of a press, under sub-s. (3) of S. 3 of the Press (Emergency Powers) Act (XXIII [23] of 1931) (hereinafter called the Press Act). The demand was made on the ground that the press was used for the purpose of printing and publishing matters specified in the schedule annexed to the notice, which were of the nature described in cl. (a) of sub-s. (1) of S. 4 of the Press Act. The petitioner challenged the validity of the demand primarily on two grounds: (1) that the notice demanding security from the petitioner was illegal because it did not state the "words, signs or visible representations" of the nature described in sub-s. (1) of s. 4, Press Act; and (2) that the Bengali leaflet entitled Sangram did not contain any "words, signs or visible representations" of the nature described in sub-s. (1) of S. 4, Press Act. The court held that the impugned provisions of the Press Act were void being inconsistent with the fundamental right given under Art. 19 (l) of the Constitution, and that these provisions were not saved under the saving clause of the Constitution.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Sm. Shaila Bala Devi, is the keeper of a printing press, known as "Bharati Press" in Purulia town. On 8-9-1949, the Governor of Bihar in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-s. (3) of s. 3 of the said Act, ordered the petitioner to make a deposit of Rs. 2000 with the Deputy Commissioner of Manbhum. It was alleged in the notice that the "Bharati Press" was used for the purpose of printing and publishing matters in a Bengali leaflet entitled "Sangram" which was of the nature described in el. (a) of sub-s. (1) of s. 4, Press (Emergency Powers) Act 1931 (XXIII [23] of 1931);
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the impugned provisions of the Press Act were void being inconsistent with the fundamental right given under Art. 19 (l) of the Constitution, and that these provisions were not saved under the saving clause of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether the notice demanding security from the petitioner was illegal because it did not state the "words, signs or visible representations" of the nature described in sub-s. (1) of s. 4, Press Act? 2. Whether the Bengali leaflet entitled Sangram did not contain any "words, signs or visible representations" of the nature described in sub-s. (1) of S. 4, Press Act? 3. Whether the impugned provisions of the Press Act were void being inconsistent with the fundamental right given under Art. 19 (l) of the Constitution? 4. Whether these provisions were not saved under the saving clause of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned provisions of the Press Act were void being inconsistent with the fundamental right given under Art. 19 (l) of the Constitution, and that these provisions were not saved under the saving clause of the Constitution. The court reasoned that the freedom of press is included in the concept of "freedom of speech and expression," and connotes in the main exemption from previous restraints upon publication. The principle is inconsistent with any scheme of licence or censorship, or a regulation requiring the keeper of a press to make a deposit of cash which would be liable in specified circumstances to forfeit. The court further held that S. 4 (1) (a) of the Press Act which plainly refers to "the commission of any offence of murder or any cognizable offence of violence" cannot without strain upon the language be restricted in its scope and connotation to such aggravated forms of murder, insurrection or violence which tend to overthrow or undermine the security of the State. In other words, S. 4 (1) (a) of the Act cannot be construed as directly concerning or * relating to any matter "which undermines the security of the State or tends to overthrow the State". It follows that S. 4 (l) (a) is an infringement of the constitutional right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Art. 19 (1) and is in consequence void.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application and set aside the order complained of.
Sarjoo Prasad, J.
1. In this case the petitioner, who is the keeper of the Bharati Press, Purulia, has moved under S. 23, Press (Emergency Powers) Act (XXIII [23] of 1931) (hereinafter called the Press Act) for setting aside an order calling upon him to deposit security under sub-s. (3) of S. 3 of the said Act.
2. On 9-9-1949, a notice was served by affixing a copy thereof on the premises of the said Bharati Press. The notice is dated Ranchi 8-9-1949, and is addressed to the keeper of the Bharati Press, Purulia. It has been signed by one B. K. Dutt, described as Under Secretary to Government and "by order of the Governor of Bihar" requiring the said keeper to deposit with the Deputy Commissioner, Manbhum, on or before 19-9-1949, security to the amount of Es. 2,000 in money or in Government securities. This demand for security, as appears from the notice, has been made under sub-s. (3) of S. 3, Press Act, and the notice further recites that the demand for security has been made inasmuch as "it appears to the Governor of Bihar that the Bharati Press, Purulia, is used for the purpose of printing and publishing matters specified in the schedule annexed hereto which are of the nature described in cl. (a) of subs. (1) of S. 4, Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, (XXIII [23] of 1931). In the schedule to the notice is mentioned "The Bengalee leaflet entitled Sangram."
3. The petitioner in his application challenges the validity of the demand of security mainly on two grounds : Firstly that the said notice demanding security from the petitioner is illegal because it does not state the "words, signg or visible representations" of the nature described in sub-s. (1) of s. 4, Press Act; and secondly that the Bengali leaflet entitled Sangram does not contain any "words, signs or visible representations" of the nature described in subs, (1) of S. 4, Press Act. There was a further ground taken in the petition itself which was to the effect that the press of the petitioner did not print or publish any leaflet entitled Sangram that is of the nature described in cl. (a) of sub-s. (l) of S. 4, Press Act. But it has been conceded in argument before the Court that the leaflet in question had been printed and published by the press of the petitioner. Therefore, so far as the factum of printing and publication of the offending document is concerned, there seems to be no dispute. The arguments have thus been confined to the two points stated above as also to a further point which was subsequently raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the first time in arguments before the Court. The point is one of constitutional importance. It is to the effect that S. 4 (1), Press Act, is inconsistent with Art. 19 (l) (a) of the Constitution of India, and, as such, is void; and, therefore, the State Government or the Provincial Government had no jurisdiction to take any action against the petitioner on account of any violation of the said provision of the Press Act.
4. The learned Government Advocate on behalf of the State objected to the last question being raised at a late stage of the hearing. The point being one of constitutional importance, the learned Government Advocate claimed that he should have been given sufficient notice of the matter and the petitioner, therefore, should not be allowed to raise this question. It is true that this constitutional point has been raised at a very late stage of the proceedings and ordinarily the Court would have been disinclined to entertain it, but as the question is one of importance and affects the very jurisdiction of the State Government to take action under the specified provisions of the Press Act, the petitioner could not be shut out from raising the question even though at a late stage of the proceedings.
5. The records disclose that a copy of the offending leaflet Sangram was not attached to the notice which was served on the petitioner; nor does it appear that the notice in question specified
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
